Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.

In Jonathan Alter’s “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” President Obama is quoted in an November 30, 2009, interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year ... That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”

It is OK for Skippy to say it - but not the CINC. If Alter is incorrect - then publish a retraction and fire his editor. If not, then see it for what it is, and never make a comment about my blog not being professional.

Don't even try to suggest that the President doesn't know the term. Don't insult him like that.

Just to make Kristin happy if she is still out there - though it is fine for the CINC, the below text is NSFW, I guess.^^^^^^^

To tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scr0tum in the mouth of a s3xual partner. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion. As a form of non-penetrative s3x, it can be done for its own enjoyment or as f0replay before other activities, such as oral s3x.

The practice has also been mimicked in online video games, as a practical joke, and in hazing incidents. The scr0tum only touches the face or head in some of these instances, though sometimes more activity is involved.

169 comments:

Sluf
said...

CDR, You get it! Imagine if you wil,l a world where conservatives referred to liberals as A$$ Lickers. Can you see it? "The President today again expressed support for his A$$ Licker friends." Or "Today Nancy Pelosi spoke to a large group of A$$ lickers in her home town of San Francisco, urging them to peaceably assemble instead of causing riots as they work to change the Nation's tax laws towards something more Draconian." Sorry, but it is impossible to see the term Tea Bagger as anything other than the homophobic slur that it is. Isn't the left supposed to be the side that supports Gay rights? Then why do they use such a term in a derogatory manner? As you point out, it is well beneath the CINC to casually toss out such language. Doing so diminishes the office, which is the real long term harm that is being done.R/Sluf

He's too busy calling in predator drone strikes on the Jonas brothers to pay attention. He's really looking out for Malia and Sasha, you know...

What's with the verite' on the email going around about him surrendering his law license and his dear wife doing the same? After we were told he was a professor of Constitutional law... that seems to be in debate too...

Did anyone vet this guy before he ran for office? His problems are considerably more than his lack of class when he speaks of political opponents. Considering the vile invective hurled at Pres. Bush for most of a decade, I think even his foes will concede he never lowered himself to that kind of slur himself.

He says stuff like this all the time. He dropped an f-bomb at a correspondent's dinner a few days ago...during his comedy rountine reportedly written by The Daily Show. He's an f'ing disgrace to the office.

It's equally unprofessional for an officer - active or retired - to publicly scold the CINC. You owe that office a deference it does not owe you. Disagree on policy all you want. Leave the discussion of the president's character and professionalism to people who aren't drawing a paycheck from the Department of Defense.

Okay. That would be me! :-D I can talk about how the man has denigrated the office till the cows come home, of course, out of a complete respect for the office.

Guest... perhaps you didn't read Phib carefully... he is scolding a man for using his office to denigrate, castigate and refer to those who are exercising their Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly using obscene gutteral language as he criticizes them. He's a president, not a king. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to a particular man.

Since you can't defend your beloved president, because Phib is right, you attack Phib. Is your MOS "messenger killer?"

Wait... you're the same GUEST who defended the WaPo's change of a quote of the child who called the police "Pigs."

I see you don't have a problem with all messages. Does not that child owe the law enforcement office of that city any deference? Perhaps your world would be happier of the editor of that article had chosen to similarly protect the president from the consequences of HIS poor word choice, no? Some would say the Post was unprofessional in doctoring quotes.

Your next task is to defend the President (er... Emporer) and his right to call members of the military he may send to fight and die disgusting and derogatory names because they do not agree with his policies, which some honestly believe contradict the Constitution they took an oath to defend.

It's all turning into such an Alice in Wonderland world with you. It's all whose ox is being gored, isn't it?

Oh, yeah... That's because freedom of speech is the 1st amendment, not a subsequent amendment. I also support the President's right do use language as he desires. I don't suggest he be censored in the name of freedom. "Tea baggers" is the appropriate name for those that tea bag.

You want to make ad hominem attacks, go for it, just be specific. If you're not specific, you're just being insultingly and vague.

Oh, I forget... we're dealing with people who haven't read history. It's all a reference to THE BOSTON TEA PARTY. Remember that from 5th grade? Bunch of patriots got sick of being taxed without any representation, especially the exhorbitant tax on TEA (which as English subjects they drank quite a bit of), so they dressed up as Indians, as the story goes, and went out to the harbor and dumped the tea in the harbor. Their Royal Governor wouldn't listen to them and refused to believe they'd destroy that tea before they acknowledged the authority of a legislature they didn't elect. It was one of the ground-laying events of the American Revolution. Fast forward 240 years, the tea bags are a reminder of that first issue of taxation and government usurpation.

Perhaps we should impeach our history and only make reference to events that haven't been bastardized and turned into gutter slang. I'd rather identify with a movement, though, that didn't anticipate how coarse and immature the opposition would get. It's a crowd that is obviously entranced with its own unmentionable body parts, excretory functions and sexual innuendo. I guess if we call 1 if by land, 2 if by sea, you'll all start giggling about #1 and #2?

Grow up, America!

Though, perhaps if Americans knew how to make a pot of tea the British way, they would dispense with the tea bags and send spoonfuls of loose Earl Grey to their congressmen. It would make a bigger mess when the envelopes are opened! :)

<span>"It was one of the ground-laying events of the American Revolution." </span>

Yet the tea baggers are feign surprise when they are considered to possibly be violent? Oh, now it all makes sense. Are you saying that the tea baggers do want to violently over throw the US Government? That would make them a terrorist organization, at least in my mind.

Sir, bless your little pea-pickin' heart! If you want to be specific, you've come to the right place! A tea BAGGER would be the person who loads the tea into the little silken fibre pouches and seals them shut and affixes the string and label. A tea SENDER or TEA MAILER would be the person who sends it to the White House or Congressional office. A TEA WAVER would be the one who holds the small sachet of tea over his or her head and waves it back and forth for the camera. A TEA DRINKER would be... moi. YOU are being insulting. And not at all vague. Except for your imprecise and incorrect usage of the Queen's English. As with our president, who should be held to a higher standard than the motley crew of his supporters who use base, gutteral invectives. It's the least we pay him for, to show a dignified face to the world.

(I like my tea iced, please. With lots of sugah... and mint. I live in the South.)

Oh, goodness, how you do run on! Before we WERE a United States, we had no official recourse to oppose such tyrannies. THAT WAS THE POINT of the revolution, silly! Now, we have a multitude of Constitutional procedures to defend our rights as citizens and legal recourse to take against those who usurp those rights. And they don't necessarily involve us charging up the hill at 1600 Penn. Ave. with pitchforks and torches.

We're just waiting politely for November. Bullets aren't necessary when you have ballots. ;)

The Tax Protesters to whom you refer, know their Constitution in more depth than you appear to. Do not fear them. They are not the ones breaking shop windows and setting things on fire when they protest. You should pay more attention. You wouldn't find yourself babbling on like this if you did.

"<span>Well, NFO, if you cannot recognize foul, inappropriate language when you see it, you should neither call yourself an officer or a gentleman. "</span>-Why do you find it foul or inappropriate? Lots of words have multiple meanings. Thank you for insulting my service, I didn't insult you. I'm sorry you can't have a discussion about a topic in a respectful manner. Are you aware of what Delta Bravo stands for in slang, perhaps before you declare things foul of inappropriate, you should enlighten yourself:

I'm aware of what my initials mean. I refuse to change them to cater to the basest and crudest interpretations of an evolving language. But thanks for pointing it out. I can see where YOUR head is. I repeat my earlier statement. ;) The one that made you go all whiney and weepy and insult my monogram.

(Still trying to figure out what "rocket surgery" is. Can you enlighten me?)

And in this country, we have had Muslims carry all kinds of guns around... and car bombs. It does tend to rattle people's cages, I've noticed. Especially when they slaughter people and try to detonate things in crowds. The tea-waving enthusiasts you so despise have yet to pull a stunt like that!

People are upset because there is both Mens Rhea, evil intent, and Actus Rheus, Evil Act, involved here. Mr. Obama is a Chicago Machine Politian, perhaps the most nasty and immature form of polititian this country has yet to produce. To belittel and smear in a manner befitting a child is SOP for Chicago Democratic Machine polititians. Mr. Obama full knew the slang meaning of the term, and as a person with the mind set of a Chicago Machiner, finding adulescent wit in sexual humor, intentionally used the term, with intentional malice.

Curious, how the Left, who claim to be so open minded about homosexuality, likes to choose homesexual references like tea bagging, as slams against people they dislike.

Delta, most of us piggy wigs don't mind being called PIGS, the sillys that use it as a slam don't know that it is an acronym: Pride Integrity Guts Service. So let them think they are being clever, when in fact, they are lauding us.

Um, sorry, Guest, but we live in a Republic, and we owe deference to neither man nor woman in public office. In fact, they owe deference to the electors (that is to say) ourselves.

Not only that, Lex -as a former officer- is quite free to condemn and malign the fatuous idiots in Washington, D.C. at any time. In case you forgot, that's one of the perks of citizenship in these United States. :)

This isn't quite as bad as the performance of ex-Marine John Murtha, but it's getting close...

Look up "teabagger" on Google. First hit is a Wiki article which begins with "To tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea when it is done in a repeated in-and-out motion."

Second hit, Urban Dictionary; 'multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging"'

Gotta throw the BS flag on this one, CNFO. Then again -considering your follow-up comments- it's pretty obvious where you come from. I'm sure the Daily Kos is eager for your presence.

"<span>Yet the tea baggers are feign surprise when they are considered to possibly be violent? Oh, now it all makes sense. Are you saying that the tea baggers do want to violently over throw the US Government? That would make them a terrorist organization, at least in my mind."</span>

Poor grammar and substandard reasoning in one convenient package. Quelle surprise. Do the Tea Party protestors "are ... feign surprise <span>when they are considered to possibly be violent." No, really, is English your first language? I know sixth-grade Kentucky drop-outs who can write a better sentance than that. Then we have "</span><span>the tea baggers do want to violently over throw the US Government?" I smell a German. Either that, or a pathetically ignorant American who is so unaware of English language usage that he sounds like Yoda on acid. That, or you're a 9th-century Saxon with a time machine.</span>

Considering that the empirical evidence for Tea Party violence is, well, zero, I'm not surprised Mister Time Machine Saxon mit das bad grammer has trouble with the elemental concept that the movement relates directly back to the Founding Fathers. Then again, there were those at the time who considered those men to be violent lunatics as well...

And, no, CNFO, the original slur of "teabaggers" came from MSNBC's David Shuster. (04/13/2009)

'<span>For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15<sup>th</sup> will be Tax Day,” Shuster said as he began a soliloquy with about a dozen separate oral sex puns. “But in our fourth story tonight: It’s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals.</span><span><span><span>

<span>“They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending – spending they did not oppose when they were under presidents Bush and Reagan,” Shuster continued. “They oppose Mr. Obama’s tax rates – which will be lower for most of them -- and they oppose the tax increases Mr. Obama is imposing on the rich, whose taxes will skyrocket to a rate about 10 percent less than it was under Reagan. That’s teabagging in a nut shell.”' (emphasis added)</span>

Ad hominem attacks. Like the elected chief executive of this country calling his political opposition a foul and vulgar name? Or one of his appointed secretaries singling out law-abiding citizens as terror threats? Or maybe discussion of how those who deign to disagree with his political views are "violent extremists"? Not coincidentally the same language he is pushing to describe Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who vow destruction of my country?

It is always interesting to watch how upset teabaggers get when someone uses a name they themselves coined about them. Yet they are more than willing to use name calling and ridicule back in the other direction. Personally I doubt if the President used that exact term-but if he did, good for him. And if it makes them mad-well that is just a bonus.

Tea baggers, Tea partiers, or my personal favorite, selfish pigs-are people who may or may not be well intentioned but are clearly misinformed. The Tea Parties are the march of the pigs, whether the attendees know it or not. And as long as they deal in the kind of ignorant language they do-then they better just deal with it when it comes back their way. Maybe if they would stop using terms like Marxism, Soclialism, or misquoting and not doing their homework about the Founding Fathers-people might not feel the urge to hold them in the contempt they so richly deserve.

"<span>CNFO is one of those who chooses which rights we should have, apparently. "</span>-Really? Which rights did I suggest be denied? If you want to make accusations, try to be specific, otherwise you just appear to be an angry, unfocused, person.

<span>"And, no, CNFO, the original slur of "teabaggers" came from MSNBC's David Shuster. (04/13/2009) '<span>For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15<sup>th</sup> will be Tax Day,” Shuster said as he began a soliloquy with about a dozen separate oral sex puns. “But in our fourth story tonight: It’s going to be teabagging day for the right-wing and they’re going nuts for it."</span></span>

--Sure sounds like the origins of tea baggers comes from the action of tea bagging, considering that per your citation, the first use wasn't tea baggers, but tea bagging... You know, the act of sending people tea bags.

Yeah, sorry. I forgot that this isn't a discussion, it's a platform for a point of view. My bad, feel free to continue being a right wing website. I'd argue that I wasn't the one that devolved into insults, but I'm sure that would only fall upon deaf ears. I'm aware of the political nature of many of the posters, and should have known better than to disagree.

So you are saying that as a single mother I am a "selfish pig" because I don't want to hand over 1/3 of my money because Obama thinks he can spend it on more worthy things than I can? I have children who need college tuition, living expenses, insurance, health care....

They've kept their message, to the most part - right at economic issues. They realize, like me, the problem is with government spending, and over-reach into people's lives. Is it constitutional for the United States government to own 60% of GM? What about ownership in Chrysler? Why is it okay to spend $1.5 trillion more than you take in, which is about $2.9 trillion annually? Why isn't that enough?

The Obama administration is forcing a fiscal train wreck that will 'force' the government to come to our rescuse, I suspect to further take over private sector industries. Tell me why that isn't plausible.

Also - back up why you say the Tea Party is mis-informed. About what? Looks like they're on to something here.

As a person who already pays way too much in taxes, I don't mind being called a "tea bagger". You see, to me that conjurs up images of me putting my balls in the mouths of "tax that middle class guy more!" liberal types.

In an effort to avoid the 'Two wrongs don't make a right..." lecture, I have never followed through with my latest evil plot. My daily instinct is to start a movement to call the Dems the BJ party, since they all had no problem with Clinton, and they seem to always cry about "B"ring back "J"obs. Dems=BJ party. Simple and not nearly as crude as the Tea Party moniker.But with the President of the United States reduced to such vile language, I am sorely tempted...

<span>I see you talk a lot about "intelligent debate". I have found that the people that talk most about it are often the most incapable of doing it. It's like a woman that is always declaring that she is a lady. </span>

Yes, officers take an oath to the Constitution and not the man, but Article 88 of the UCMJ - duly passed in accordance with that Constitution - says they hold their tongue when it comes to contemptuous speech regarding the CINC and certain other civilian political officials. If an officer can't do that, he or she should feel free to take a job that doesn't require fidelity to an oath. I would also point out that retirees, unlike reservists not drilling or on active duty, are still subject to the UCMJ by virtue of the paycheck they continue to get from DoD.

I'm sure you don't like not being able to call it like you see it when it comes to the CINC, but the sucky part about having principles - like believing in the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof - is that sometimes you have to do something you don't want to do, like show deference to someone who you don't think deserves it.

So I gather you will roundly condemn Jiminy Carter, an ex-Naval Officer, for his contemptuous speech over the years for whatever CinC was in charge?

Moreover, if you can find one word or sentence in Phib's post that is "contemptuous" or derogatory, please highlight it for us. He asked some questions about a current news story and pointed out the kind of people who were presidents before.

Other posters have free speech rights. You are demanding they praise an action or set of words which they feel is contemptuous of a large segment of the electorate? This man was going to set a tone and change everything. Lions were going to lie down with lambs. Bunnies and unicorns would romp with the butterflies all over a rainbow-flecked plain. Happy happy joy joy!

We're still waiting. Meanwhile, he has led the charge for some very negative and disrespectful discourse, nor has he told his minions to stand down.

CNFO, One time honored form of argument is Reductio ad absurdum. Since the starting point, the term "Tea Baggers," is so far along the road already, it is difficult to walk it down to the end and keep it classy. As for whether serving officers should or shouldn't be allowed to question political behavior and discourse, thank goodness we still have that right. Remember, last time I checked, dissent is still patriotic.R/Sluf

1) You never heard a peep from these folks about profilgate spending when Bush was President. If they were that concerned about waste-they should have been locked in arms with the anti-war protesters about taking the country to war for useless Arabs, and in a war that would never end. And there was never a peep or a demonstration about Medicare Part D. Where were were the mass protests in 2004 when a Republican Congress passed Medicare Part D? This bill will cost all taxpayers over the next ten years over $1.2 trillion dollars and was paid for by debt; neither tax increases nor spending cuts were issued to offset the new Medicare program. This is about a Democrat being in the White House. They resume their silence when a Republican re-enters the oval office. The spending will continue however.

2) Taxes are actually lower as a percentage of the Federal GNP, then it has been in years (31.5%). Most S.P.'s don't realize that. They think its a lot higher-even though the facts prove them wrong-again and again. Same is true about the 1.2. trillion dollars in deficit spending they love to crow about. CBO in January 2009 BEFORE Obama came into office were projecting a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. Obama’s stimulus bill which many Tea Partiers claim was the cause of the beginning of the Tea Party movement added only $200 billion to that existing debt. Most of the causes of our current debt load can be found in Bush administration policies.

3) The US. was on the edge of a financial abyss when Obama took office. No one in the tea party movement seems to realize that-nor are they paying attention to the fact that negative GDP growth of the last few months of the Bush adminstration has been turned around and the market is where it was in June of 2008. That's important for S.P's and non S.P's alike.

4) Government overreach? Bush did all that-Obama has kept it pretty much the same as it was in Bush's adminstration. Never hear a peep from Tea partiers about warrantless wire taps, net neutrality, the assault on privacy and civil liberties that was made in the period 2001-2008. See point 1.

That's just few ways they are wrong. I had a longer comment-but Phib's word limit stopped me twice.

Are you handing over 33% to the federal government? Sounds like you need a new accountant. If you are talking about state and federal taxes-that's till pretty steep-because most Americans ( even the rich ones) are not handing over near that much. (CBO stats).

Heck, since we know tea partiers are a "cross section of America" -47% of them are paying no taxes at all. :)

Dissent may be patriotic-but the demonstrations by the teabaggers are for the most part pointless. They will get the sychophants they want elected through time honored political tactics that occur not in parks or parade grounds, but in PACS, campaign contributions, stuffing envelopes and manning phone banks. They just look stupid with their hats and often mis-spelled signs-and joker placards. Its the exact same kind of behavior many of them complained about with the anti-war protesters.

In fact-I would submit its counter productive to their cause-because seeing them on TV just makes me more resolved to dig in and vote against anyone they like.

from the legal corner...UCMJ only applies to retirees in the most limited of circumstances. It's tricky, complicated and involves activation from fleet reserve. It's so seldom used as to be almost myth. I doubt it applies to you. So, good salamander, slam away!

If I were hard left that might be true. I' still a registered Republican-but not their kind of Republican. I'm the middle of the road guy they are alienating by their insistence on ideological purity. I'm with David Frum-the Republicans are behaving stupidly.

In the ong term they are cutting their own throat and destroying the Republican party-becasue over the long haul, demographics and cold hard realities are going to put them on the down side of history.

Like the Poujadist's-they will have their day in the sun and fade away, unmourned.

ActusRhesus is correct. I was extremely unhappy about the spending from Republicans and The Bush Administration. In fact, people like you (Skippy) then should have liked the Bush administration if you're big into government spending. I did say something about it.

1. 'The US was on the edge of financial abyss when Obama took office'. Yes, and I have seen video of a congressional hearing in 2003 with Maxine Waters and Barney Frank saying that there's nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie Mac, in response to questioning from Republicans on the financial help. So no - you aren't going to blame the Republican for that. There were at least 12 attempts to stregthen the rules by Republicans and Democrats beat it down.

And it appears I have to 'splain' it one more time:

The Democrats made it a 'right' to own a home. Legislation from both the Carter and Clinton administrations, which opened the flood gates to changing the rules to own a home. The bleeding hearts allowed people who couldn't financially own a home - get a home. Another example of 'wishing' something - rather than following the rules and earning it. That created the financial mess more than anything.

2. Skippy - a $800+ billion 'stimulus' plan (that isn't) added $200 billion to existing debt. Not even I can drink that one. All of that was borrowed money. The interest puts that over $1 trillion. You've got noooo shot there. That's liberal math.

3. Government over-reach: warrantless wiretaps - love that chestnut. You do realize that in secret - there was a judge that did review wiretap requests, and if memory serves - that was part of the Patriot Act to listen in on calls to country's not friendly to us.

4. Taxes - love that one too - did you happen to see the USA Today (if memory serves) about 2-3 weeks ago that stated 50% of all citizens do not pay federal income taxes? And 70% of all federal taxes are paid for by those making $250k?

5. You continue to blame Bush on money. To some extent so do I. But exactly what has Obama done to change that? That's right - his answer is to spend more!! Take over industries, increase hiring in federal government jobs, healthcare legislation designed to put companies out of business and let beaucrats make health care decisions for me! Yeah - continue to beat on the Tea Parties dude. It's only going to make more show up.

I'm done here - because you make accusations you can't back up. What assault on privacy and civil liberties?

Skippy, Well I called Tea Party headquarters and advised them of the futility of their actions. They told me that since they already had all these great Palin-Ryan '12 T-shirts done up they sort of felt obligated to keep going. They did offer to stop all rallies in Hunstville if you promise not to vote. Whaddya think-- Deal?VR/Sluf

But not from anyone in authority or who had prestige within the party. Certainly not from any of the majority leadership in Congress from 2002-2006. And you certainly did not have a "populist movement" with stupid signs and fat white people taking to the streets to do so.

Ron Paul was dismissed as a crank-because he was oppsosed to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I guarantee you, if the Republicans do take over Congress, Boehner will have Paul Ryan drowned and/or silenced. Cause they love spending as much as the Democrats do-and they love their earmarks. Wait till you see Rubio run to the center in the general election.

It is CBO math not liberal math. And its a fact-that has plenty of documentation to back it up.

Same too with the explanations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae-you are ignoring the root causes of the meltdown that are based in a market driven by artifically high home prices-and speculators who tried to play the market which undermined the credit markets. I'd also point out that a hell of a lot of real estate agents and private banks looking to make money helped put people into sub-prime loans. Besides increasing homeownership has been a bedrock Republican position for years.

As for federal income taxes-go back and do some detailed research. Most of the zero liability is growth is due to child tax credits and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)-as well as 9%+ unemployment. If you want a more detailed explanation go over to my blog-I have twice put that myth on the ash heap where it belongs. And even at that they most people still pay taxes.

The Patriot Act is not a defense BTW. I've got more-but its Cinco de Mayo and I gotta go drink! :)

DeltaBravo and Aubrey - John Kerry and Jimmy Carter are civilians, not retired officers, and Article 88 does not apply to them. As for Wesley Clark, I can assure you that I would find it inappropriate for ANY retired officer to engage in contemptuous speech toward ANY CINC. You're getting a paycheck from DoD, it comes with strings. Deal.

AR - I agree with you that it is highly unlikely we would ever pull a retiree back onto active duty for a court-martial, but that doesn't change whether the law applies to retirees. It does. I think it is by definition unprofessional for an officer to violate the UCMJ, regardless of the likelihood that he or she will be prosecuted for it.

Phib - I don't want to outlaw speech, Congress did that in 1950 when it passed Article 88. The law is what it is. As for whether your post is insulting...well, I'm really not sure what else you could have meant by "the CINC just dropped the veil - again - for those to see what he is." What is he, Phib?

What would you suggest should be done? The deficit is still huge, the merits of the stimulus are very debatable, the long-term costs and liabilities are still there. I'd agree that neither party has any real interest in cutting spending and that a large enough part of the citizenry now looks to Uncle Sam for goodies that it constitutes a constituency able to block reforms. This is a huge structural problem in our political system. To my mind, it proves that when government gets into the business of handing out favors - to individuals, unions, corporations, race or gender groups etc., it simply can't stop and ultimately wrecks the system. Our problems didn't begin with the Obama or Bush administrations: they started with the notion of entitlements and the movement beyond the limits of constitutional government. To fix it requires reversing that. Maybe it's impossible, but it's legitimate to try and stupid to just roll over.

I am curious. Were you a hall monitor in high school? I have scanned these comments and find nothing from you but childish critiques of others. There is a very "tattle-tale" sort of tone to your comments.

You have offered nothing of substance. You seem to be sitting back, not doing any heavy lifting (or light for that matter) in this debate and just sniping at others. It wears thin. It adds nothing to the discourse. You, and people like you are most assuredly a hinderance to courteous debate.

Has the Phibian said anything in the least critical or disrespectful of Shasha & Malia? I find this criticism to be wholly without merit.

Indeed Sal is holding them up and highlighting their importance. He is drawing attention to the value of their opinion. After all, if they did not matter, it would not be a problem for their father to have to explain the word, would it?

So let me get this straight... if you resign your commission after a few years because your dad dies or you decided you don't want to be in a war or something, that dispenses you from any obligation to treat CinCs with respect? Not even being a former CinC obligates one to behave with circumspection and decorum?

Glad you cleared that up.

Still, I'm off the hook. ;) So I can say unequivocally that I think the present CinC has behaved in a shockingly naive manner in carrying out his office thus far, being in perpetual campaign mode has not fixed our economy or made us more secure, and he has tried to have it all ways, in the end pleasing no one. His behavior on the global stage has caused our friends and allies to doubt us and our reliability and intentions. It will take the next president a lot of extra work to reestablish our credibility. And all those nations that were going to fall at our feet and cooperate as long as AnyoneButBush was president... ummmm.... crickets chirping.....

I consider myself fairly well informed on the history of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers and I think they would applaud the sentiment expressed by Tea Party supporters.

The most basic tenant held by the majority of those who identify themselves as TeaPartiers or as sympathetic to the movement is they feel disregarded by the government. They feel that they are doing their part as citizens but their voices are not heard. What could be more in line with the motives of the Founding Fathers?

As far as using terms such as Marxism or Socialism, I chalk that up to frustration and let it go. Not every citizen has the benefits of our education, however, every citizen has the right to air their grievances with the government.

However, I am offended when someone who does indeed know better, such as pundits on MSNBC sieze upon vulgar sexual terms to denigrate a fellow citizen who is exercising their constitutional rights. If someone within the TeaParty movement coined the term "teabagger" first, you and I both know very well it was without knowledge of it's connection to sexual slang. But those who hurl it as invective are fully aware of it's other meaning. They are disgusting and they do nothing to move the debate forward.

"You never heard a peep from these folks about profilgate spending when Bush was President"

Of course you didn't hear from many of these people. That's because they were not forced to confront it until it landed on their doorstep. Are you saying that because the vast majority of these people were absorbed in their own day-to-day life until it all came crashing in on them, that they have no right to speak now? How absurd.

Not paying attention to the looming crisis is not akin to giving George Bush a free pass. Would it have been better if everyone paid attention as we do all the time? Certainly. But you can't rewrite history - if you could, you and I would erase a few marriages...right Skippy?

<span>Dissent may be patriotic-but the demonstrations by the teabaggers are for the most part pointless.</span><span></span><span>I must wholeheartedly disagree. If you think that those who identify as TeaParty members or as sympathetic to their movement are not a force to be reckoned with.....I give you Senator Scott Brown.</span><span></span><span>I am an appointed election worker in the Town of Kingston, Clerk of Precint 2. Of the roughly 8,500 registered voters in my town, 5,308 showed up the polls. I have never, in my over 20 years working the polls witnessed such a high percentage of voter turnout. 67% of those who voted, marked their ballot for Scott Brown. I can not begin to count the number of people who told me that they were voting for the first time, or the first time in a long time.</span><span></span><span>These people with their emails and signs and rallies will most assuredly impact the elections come November.</span>

I need to step in here -- this is Jay -- not sure why my first post -- about the daughters, was listed as "guest" -- the rest weren't from me, but I pretty much agree with them.

URR -- what you & many of your ilk never seem to realize -- is just because you can do something (and especially galling is doing it while hiding behind a screen name -- lots of honor there, Chum...) doesn't mean you should. Poor leadership. Many of us who wear the uniform (full or part time) held our tongues over Pres Bush -- and didn't criticize him in public -- not because we didn't vehemently disagree with his policies, or poor performance -- but out of respect for the office & the current holder (no matter if we voted/supported for him or not). We'll continue to do so in the future. You'd do well to follow the same example, but I suspect you are enable. Sad. I'd give you credit if you had the decency to remove your uniform picture (it doesn't do well for the military) and replace it with one of you in civvies. Otherwise, you give the mistaken appearance of DoD vailidity to your comments.

Jay, give it a rest with the "holier than thou" crap. CINC uses vulgar language to describe his political opponents, and his appointed secretary releases a memo stating that, since I wear that uniform, I am a possible home-grown terrorist, and you tell me how unprofessional I am.

I keep that uniform picture there because 1) I earned it and everything on it and 2) I am one of those returning veterans who believe the federal government is too big and intrusive, believes in the Second Amendment, (and the First, too), and was labeled a prospective terrorist by a senior member of this administration. If Obama cans Napolitano, like he should have done eons ago, I will change the picture.

Appearance of DoD validity to my comments? Like Mullen running his unsolicited personal opinions out of his mouth while in uniform? Like that?

Sure they will-to Obama's advantage. They will almost certainly keep the GOP from winning back the Senate by backing actual lunatics, such as Rand Paul in Kentucky. Furthermore, I think those folks are going to be very disappointed in Florida's Marco Rubio when he runs to the middle for the general electorate. And throwing their support to the demonstrably unelectable J.D Hayworth in Arizona is never a good idea. Do you think that it's a coincidence that moderate Republicans like Tommy Thompson and George Pataki aren't running for easily winnable Senate seats in deep blue states like Wisconsin and New York? I don't.

If those people still exist in 2012 and somehow manage to stop Mitt Romney from winning the nomination, they will have created the perfect atmosphere for Obama to be re-elected by a 1964-like margin. Palin? She only cares about the money as the recent New York article demonstrated very well. " We have already established what you are-we are just negotiating over the price!"

<span>What would I suggest be done? Well it depends if I am dictator or not-and able to impose what I know to be right on people who have to be told: "you will not get your way".To start with I would pull troops out of both Afghanistan and Iraq immediately-and let the worthless Arabs and Afghans be free to kill themselves. That alone would save a boatload of money-and allow the US military to actually "reset". The savings alone from O&M funds from not having to waste time in those countries would go a long way.

Second, I would attack Social Security by curbing future obligations by converting every one under 35 to a CPF style plan like they have in Singapore. Americans would be forced to contribute on average at least 10% of their pre-tax earnings towards a retirement fund. Employers-regardless of size would have to match that. No exceptions-you want to do business here, that's the playing field. Over time I would up the age where Social Security would not be taken. eventually there would be no FICA tax at all. It would be replaced by the mandatory deduction to fund the CPF account. As an aside-funds in a CPF account would be available to use as collateral against a house loan-so that home ownership would still be a good deal. But home sizes would shrink as we work towards a minimum housing standared-like HDB units in Singapore.

Third. I would reform the tax code with a flat tax-15% for the first 100,000. 20% for the 100,000-20000 and 30% for 300000 and up. No housing exemption, etc. If that is not enough revenue to balance the budget-I would impose a 5% VAT. Also-assuming I was not able to achieve item one above-there would be a $1 a gallon surcharge to pay for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be repealed the day American troops leave those Godforsaken countries.

I would keep health care reform in place-but amend it to allow a public option. Eventually we would end up with a system like is in place in Switzerland, or Japan with a mix of public and private insurance. Eventually people would mostly end up with an employer funded health plan with a public option safety net. Employed people would also pay health insurance premiums-but their employer would have to match it. No exceptions-again a cost of doing business.</span><span></span> <span>I would impose a progam of National service-with a draft -for men only. The laws allowing women to go the service academies would be repealed. </span>

Can it happen? Not a chance-but you asked what I would do if could. That's it.

<span><span>The Founders were well versed in their history. They knew especially the fate of Greek city-state democracies that fell to demagogues. Alexander Hamilton warned Americans about, “ times of such commotion as the present, while the passions of men are worked up to an uncommon pitch, there is great danger of fatal extremes” and later spoke of populist politicians that “begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people.”</span></span><span></span><span>The other conservative Founding Fathers (i.e. John Adams, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Thomas Sedgwick, Rufus King, Fisher Ames et. al.) were on the same page with Hamilton. They saw populism as the dark arts of the ultra-democrat and rabble-rouser. Orestes Brownson would later in the 19<sup>th</sup> Century refer to the creed of the populist as “The people sovereign; the people are divine; the people are infallible and impeccable.” Needless to say, Brownson wrote that this is not a conservative creed nor should the conservative have any interest in seeing it prevail.</span><span></span><span>Try and imagine if you can, Brownson or Hamilton barking like a seal the next time, FOX’s Laura Ingraham at a Tea Party rally, </span><span>compares</span><span> paying more taxes to the Nazi Holocaust."</span>

Its not redistibution of wealth-it is demanding that we enforce a modicum of a certain standard of living. Other countries make it work BTW. We don't-even though we have more resources to do so-because we are too concerned with the right of rich people to be obscenly rich.

Okay. Thanks, although I was hoping for suggestions for proceeding within the electoral system.

Some of what you've proposed I'd buy (especially the flat tax) and some of the other items to varying degrees (biggest disagreement regarding health care). The thing is, whenever variations on these proposals have been made on the right, they've been shot down with shall we say less than rational rhetoric on the left. The flat tax is the best example, but also for variations on your Social Security option. Proposals to up the retirement age, to means test retirees or to limit benefits based on contribution, all fairly sensible ideas, have been attacked with much the same rhetoric and would be branded as extremist in many quarters. That should be kept in mind when considering the current situation.

That said, there will be no change if people don't speak out and that is what the Tea Party movement is doing. To the extent that they are not pushing an actual legislative agenda, they will likely be disappointed. But, that of itself is not enough to warrant disparaging them.

<span>If I could erase a few marriages- I would. Hell-if could eliminate the institution entirely-sign me up.

But like my former marriage-the tea party movement is solely about assigning blame-not fixing the problem. And they assign blame totally on the current adminstration when most of the seeds of the problem were sewn in previous administrations. And in particular-everyone should have paid attention when the President of the United States started a war for no purpose, that did nothing to further the intersts of the United States and then did nothing to require the populace as a whole to sacrifice to pay for it. </span><span></span><span>Just like men do in divorce-they can't erase the past-but unlike Bush they do get held to account for it.</span>

<span><span>Hey knock yourself out. I've lived in this f*cking town almost two years and its full of nothing but fat stupid people. Whether or not I vote or not-makes little difference. The political commericals here are all full of both Democrats and Republicans advertsing how much they love going to church, how truly Christian they are, how much they love NASA, how much they love MDA, and did I mention that they all advocate tax cuts? I'm stuck-because I have no one to vote for in the primary. Voting gives me a right to bitch and I believe in that. So I will vote early and often. F*ck 'em-they suck.

The good news is that if all goes well by the end of this year I will be on the right side of the international date line, where trains run on time, women f*ck, and people get along a hell of a lot better than do in this Godforsaken chunk of real estate. The good news is-thanks to BRAC, I will probably make a lot of money on my house. So have a blast. I'll still vote you know.</span> </span>

Except-and this is the big "except" they are banishing the people who can best do their bidding and turning to some really crazy stupid people. Some people who have worked hard for the Republican party are being trashed-and the folks the teabaggers are loving are seriously crazy-e.g Palin and Bachman.

I' don't like upping the retirement age becuase I don't want to have to work forever- if I could I would not work now I would. Work sucks-especially outside the Navy. I admit it's a raise in the retirement age is probably going to come-but thats' where I would have been better served by a CPF. And not having to pay for a house with a yard-but a decent apartment with decent public transportation available. Part of our problem is because of our defintion of what is an acceptable way of life-there are alternatives that work better.

Wow. Right out of the Manifesto. You are right. It isn't socialist. It's communist. Enforce a standard of living. Is that like "economic justice"? Right of the rich to be obscenely rich. As defined by? You? The Obamas? Barney Frank? The right of the rich to possess the wealth they lawfully acquired? You betcha. I grew up lower middle class and have seldom owned a car with fewer than 100k miles. But I begrudge those "obscenely rich" nothing. Not a dime. And certainly don't believe it is the government's place to do so either.

<span><span><span>I've lived in this f*cking town almost two years and its full of nothing but fat stupid people. Whether or not I vote or not-makes little difference. The political commericals here are all full of both Democrats and Republicans advertsing how much they love going to church, how truly Christian they are, how much they love NASA, how much they love MDA, and did I mention that they all advocate tax cuts?</span></span></span>

I think I understand now. You're stuck in the Bible Belt -- Huntsville, AL, I presume, from the references above -- and you can't stand the politics even though the money's good. May I suggest relocating to the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland, where you will probably find a position with equal or better pay (especially with all the BRAC pork Babs Milkulski and Steny Hoyer brought to town) and the political climate much more to your liking?

For the record, I left the DPR of Maryland on full afterburner upon retirement *because* of the politics. Life's too short to be stuck in a place that makes you miserable.

The "poor" do not create their own jobs. The "rich" create real jobs. They buy boats, cars, houses and furniture and clothing made by people who are not as wealthy. They invest money in new companies that hire people who are not as wealthy. Take away the money of the "rich" and give it to those who do not earn as much, it becomes the "give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime.." proposition.

The "rich" don't sit on their money like Scrooge McDuck. They spend it and invest it to make more. In doing that, they keep our economy from becoming a Soviet-like monolith where everyone is equal in misery.

URR - Article 88 forbids officers from using contemptuous words against the president and certain other civilian political officials. It does not distinguish between active duty and retired officers. Article 2 subjects both to the UCMJ, but clearly states that reservists are a different matter - they are only subject to the UCMJ while on active duty or drilling.

I'm not sure what you mean about your freedom of speech being "forfeited". If you are subject to the UCMJ, you accept certain restrictions on your speech - you can't disrespect a superior commissioned officer, you can't badmouth the CINC, you can't chain yourself to the White House in uniform to protest DADT, etc. The prohibition in Article 88 is very narrowly drawn...it only applies to officers and it only applies to contemptuous speech. Policy disagreements are fine.

Guest,Our House JAG has spoken (actual no kidding JAG) - and all is well. Put your jackboots back in the closet. If you don't like the nature of a military in a Representative Republic founded on freedom - there are plenty of other places to hide out and your mindset would be more comfortable. They might even let you put a bullet in the back of heads that speak out. Happens every day in nations where you follow your logic line.

Guest, I know what Art 88 says. I have been in the Corps almost 30 years and know very well what the restrictions are on expression. And criticism of policy, political leanings, and actions/statements is perfectly permissible. If I think the President is a socialist, I have the right to say so, especially if I am not in uniform and doing so in the execution of my duties. I am a citizen, taxpayer, and voter, just like everybody else. Your assertion of "can't badmouth" is exceedingly vague, and given some of your assertions, intentionally so.

Phib, as someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution and the freedoms it protects, I take great offense to what you just posted. All I have done is suggest that your original post crossed the line given the laws applicable to military officers, yet somehow that gives you license to call me a jackbooted thug who wants to murder people for dissent. You have proven your lack of professionalism more effectively than anything I could ever have posted here.

Your house JAG is right about the likelihood of prosecution, but if he's suggesting to you that the UCMJ does not apply to retired officers, he's wrong. But don't take my word for it, here's a page from the website of the civilian defense counsel representing SO2 McCabe:

Guest, I don't believe Phib used the word "thug" anywhere in his post. But if the jackboot fits....

Actually, you seem to be advocating an unquestioning adherence to policy and procedure and authority in the military ranks that would be laughable if it didn't follow so closely upon the heels of a decade where "dissent" was called brave and admirable by those of a certain cadre. You are saying that our troops must follow and respect all authority, no matter how wrong-headed or unConstitutional, and must suspend all personal judgment and opinion in blind adherence to "authority?" A command environment that stifles its officer corps like that makes no room for anything but a response at Nuremberg of "I was just following orders." Do you want an officer corps that quotes Article 88 all the way into the pit of hell?

It's a dark road you are pointing toward. Our very freedom and ability to defend ourselves from all enemies "foreign and domestic" hangs in the balance, literally. I wonder, though, if you were this angry at those who "dissented" from Pres. Bush's decisions and the CoC at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2009....

Guest,I note your offense and am glad to see it - that means there is hope for 'ya yet.

Lets get back to your desire not to talk about the subject at hand -i.e. the President of the United States using a term in open that describes a non-traditional sex act - and talk about my comments. Please go back to my post. Read it again and tell me which part you have issue with?

Oh, you may want to refer to the blogosphere way of give and take. You need a thicker skin and less flint on your pointy bits. We're a bunch of guys and gals here hanging out on my front porch on the bench swing and rocking chairs talk'n about stuff over a beer, a fine single malt, or iced tea - what ever fits your bill. If I like 'ya - I might even get you and RC Cola and a moonpie.....just make sure you are wearing your jock on the porch. Between Maggie and Skippy - we have some varsity players up here. Me? I'm just pay'n the electrical bill.

I don't need an explanation as to why the opposition calls "TeaPartier"s but a disgusting sexual slur. I *know* why they do it. They do it out of fear.

I am here because I enjoy almost all of the discussion from both sides with the exception of what you and the other nitpickers add.

If you don't enjoy being insulted, then grow up and particpate in a mature fashion.

My remarks to you were not personal attacks, they were my honest observations of the posts I could see here. There is no way for me to offer an opinion on something you have deleted. My apologies for being late to the discussion. If you care to email it to me, I will read it. if it makes more sense than the other comments you have left, I will be happy to say so.

Just gotta love it when the anti-tea party guys get going. I guess they find the idea of lower taxes, less government and greater liberties quite upsetting. The slur the leftists applies to them was first used by part of the big government loving media and quickly picked up by all those folks who are constantly demanding more "civility" from conservatives.

It's typical of the "Progressives" however. That has been their template for a century. But, in attacking what has grown as a spontaneous movement they have revealed themselves for what they are. A bunch of crypto fascists who will do anything to destroy their perceived enemies. The fact that they are hypocrites of the first order is now apparent to anyone who pays the slightest attention.

Anyone who has applied the "teabagger" slur to Americans peacefully demonstrating in support of limited government has forever forfeited their right to whine about anything said about them or their fellow leftists.

Skippy I completely agree on the dangers of governing a country like this was American Idol. I do not want my representative in the sway of public opinion only. Yet there must be balance. While a representative owes the people his judgement (to quote Burke), does he not also owe them consideration of their views? There is a substantial chunk of the American population who feel disenfranchised. They view themselves as working and following the rules....and ignored. Isn't their opinion just as important as any other segment of the population?

Many of my recent posts that you COULD see were meant to point out the idiocy of others with the right wing republican point of view not holding themselves to the same standards they were happy to set for those with an opposing point of view. If people want to attack me, fine. When they only attack me, and give others with their point of view a free pass, they're only attacking me because they don't have a response to the argument. That was my point, and it was made nicely.

Thank you for clarifying that there is no debate here. Tea baggers is not _only_ a label for people that conduct a specific sexual act. Do you suggest that anyone that is addressed as a Missionary is being labeled as a sexual act? Should we rename male and female pipe fittings? The people sent tea bags to congress. They shouldn't be shocked when that is labeled tea bagging, and the people that conduct tea bagging, are tea baggers. They have a branding problem of their own creation.

There are lots of words and phrases with multiple meanings in the English language. As I politely pointed out to DB, "DB" has multiple meanings in the English language. As I'll point out to you... "BM" has many meanings. You chose the name, don't blame other people for using the name in a way you didn't anticipate.

You want to tell me to grow up, go tell the tea party patriots that "Sticks and stones will break their bones, but names will never hurt them."

They want to make fun of liberals (arugula comes to mind), and chose to rally around tea? So many better options. They look like fools, and are angry at others for the public perception problem they created.

By the way, your remarks were personal (addressed to and at me), and they were insulting. You want to make the insults, stand by them. Calling your insults "honest observations" is dishonest. Don't lie to yourself.

Any leftist who hires an accountant is like a Baptist preacher who keeps a whore on retainer. You demand unlimited government and outrageous taxes, just not for you. Sounds like a candidate for Obama's cabinet.

I fundementally disagree with the "cradle to grave" mentality, so comparisons to other countries do nothing to sway my opinion. It's like pointing out that my neighbor, who beats her children, has offspring on the honor roll. I think I would rather take a beating than live in one of those Scandanavian countries where life is so controlled. And no, I have not experienced it first hand, but I think I have read enough to render that judgement for myself.

And I have a huge problem with the idea that Democrats tell me that we need to "enforce a modicum of a certain standard of living". that problem stems from the fact that all of my life, that was rammed down my throat by Ted Kennedy. A man who lived as freely as a ton of money and the people's love of his dead brothers would allow...all the while screwing white working class people. The very people who propelled his older brother to the Presidency. It is this sort of hypocrisy that grates most for me.

I am for a truly color blind society, Senator Kennedy never was. In a truly color blind society the Boston Police and Fire Departments would consist of only the top candidates. In a truly color blind society, small children would walk to their neighborhood schools. Schools that got equal chunks of the budget and teachers assigned by lottery. Wouldn't that be better and cheaper than putting small children on buses to travel miles to strange neighborhoods. But such logic would not appeal to a man beholden to powerful teacher's unions while he put his children in private schools.

Hmmmph. When Mama Bravo and Papa Bravo chose my monogram, they failed to foresee my initials would be usurped and transformed into a crude slur. I refuse to change my life-long initials to cater to the lowest common denominator.

LOL! I most certainly was not making excuses for anything I said. I stand by everything I said.

T-E-A-P-A-R-T-I-E-Rs chose that name. Because one of their membership or someone sympathetic to it mispoke once or twice does not mean anything. The point here, and you seem to be intentionally dodging it, is that someone who *does* know what it mean is using it as an insult. We are simply calling them out on it.

<span>"We are simply calling them out on it."</span>-Too bad you don't have anything more important to add beyond "don't call us names" it makes you look bad. Seriously? If I had a nickel for every time one of you "insulted" people threw an insult, I'd be rich. Let me refer to the previous listing:

<span>"<span>hall monitor in high school"</span> "<span>childish critiques"</span> "<span>You seem to be sitting back, not doing any heavy lifting (or light for that matter) in this debate"</span> "<span>You, and people like you are most assuredly a hinderance to courteous debate."</span> </span>

There, I called you out on it.... again. Let me guess just honest observations? Here's an honest observation.... Someone that sends a bunch of tea bags to someone else out of protest, is a person that tea bags. The recipient got tea bagged, by a tea bagger. If you don't want to be called tea baggers, don't hang tea bags from your hats. If you want to send sacks of tea, you'd be called tea sackers. I guess the party only uses tea bags because they're more convenient than loose leaf tea. If you sat around and drank tea, you'd be called tea partiers.

You certainly are making excuses, you can lie to yourself all you want. I do love the theory of "they aren't insults if they're my observations." Message boards are hilarious.

DB,You should be outraged that people call you DB. I mean, you're outraged that people call tea baggers, well tea baggers. What do you think the person is called that bags tea? Just curious? Would "Tea Packager" be better or worse? I mean "package" is a term that has a sexual connotation. When you look at the UPS guy and say "Thanks for the package," were you talking about his genitals, or the box. Oh, no. "Box", there's another one with a sexual connotation. I bet "boxers" are really irritated that people call them that, I mean one can hardly tell if someone is referring to one that boxes, or an undergarment. Oh, the outrage. Lets not even get started on Taco Bell.

<span>"Hmmmph. When Mama Bravo and Papa Bravo chose my monogram, they failed to foresee my initials would be usurped and transformed into a crude slur. I refuse to change my life-long initials to cater to the lowest common denominator. "</span>

I'll decide what outrages me, CNFO. But right now I'm laughing at you because obviously this is the closest you'll get to talking dirty to a woman without having a drink thrown in your face. You have a tendency to have way too much fun throwing around the innuendos in mixed company. Like a 5-year-old who just learned the F word. Oh, the joys of the internet....

Agreed! A government big enough to give you everything you need is also big enough to take away everything you have....

Maggie, maybe those not privileged to be born with Irish blood running through their veins don't know the freedom that goes with expecting life to dump on you (the Irish expect it), but knowing that with your own education and wits and a sense of humor and a way with words you can probably climb out on top and blow raspberries at those who didn't think you could succeed. And then collect the paycheck for being witty while doing it.

I'm sure old Ted even would have smiled at the artful wording of this: "A man who lived as freely as a ton of money and the people's love of his dead brothers would allow"

DB - I honestly don't know how you're getting any of that out of anything I am saying. It's like you're having an argument with someone else, I'm just not sure who it is.

URR - I completely agree that you have every right to express disagreement with the president's policies in a private capacity. You do not have the right to engage in speech that is personally contemptuous of the president. Do we actually disagree on that point?

MTH - classy, as usual. Article 2 of the UCMJ disagrees with you, and I'm sorry to hear that you consider the UCMJ to be BS. I personally do not think retirees should be subject to UCMJ jurisdiction for acts committed after they retire, but I don't think it was unjust for Congress to reach a different conclusion.

Phib - it's your blog, and if you're happy with the quality of discourse here, I suppose that's really all that matters. As for the specific part of your post I disagreed with, I pointed that out in one of my earlier comments.

You're quite welcome! It was almost as well thought out as your own post with all of its flexible terms and intimations of intimacy.

You should really be grateful I didn't decide to turn my laser humor on you and evaporate you in a cloud of guffaws from the spectators. But you are getting tiresome and I think I shall leave you alone for a while before I decide to make you interesting by mocking you.

"<span>You do not have the right to engage in speech that is personally contemptuous of the president. Do we actually disagree on that point? "</span>

That depends entirely on what you consider personally contemptuous. It is generally a very narrow definition that would equate largely to a libel charge in the civilian world, or the threat of violence or harm. None of which I have ever seen Phib or any of his porch gang write or advocate.

If you are telling me that the President and Congress wanted the elements of the offense in Art 88 to have a wide applicability, you will have to show me proof of that assertion. A similar stipulation was in all service conduct regulations in one form or another prior to implementation of the Uniform Code, so Article 88 was nothing new.

But why are they ignored? They have elections periodically and they get to vote for who they think will do their bidding. However just because they do not get their way all the time does not mean they are disenfranchised-unless you are willing to consider it works both ways-e.g. when the country goes down a rat hole in terms of foreign policy. No body listened to me then-but then I was told "it was the courage of doing what needed to be done".

Actually it does work in several countries not Greece per se. The issue is that its not fair to watch guys like Tilton of United walk out on their employees and screw them-so they can walk away with 40 millon dollars. If companies are making so much money they should be plowing it back into their companies-not paying CEO's huge salaries.

Whether you realize it or not-the world is going to have to tackle the gap between the have's and have nots or you will have Greece like violence ten fold in the coming years at locations all over the world. When you have the type of income disparities and misallocation of resources as exists throughout the west and in Asia it sews the seeds of bad things to come in the future. Some companies have taken on the problem and their societies as a whole are better places to live. Better than some of the places here in the USA as a matter of fact.

The problem with Greece, followed by Spain, and Italy, and possibly Hungary and Rumania is that the massive social spending and entitlements have broken the bank in each of these countries. The only reason they had the flexibility to spend so freely is that the US was bankrolling their defenses.

The fate of the Euro hangs in the balance, because the entire system is built on a socialist model that has NEVER worked and will never work, as it saps the incentive for achievement and rewards indolence. Europe continuing down this path will become the 21st century economic equivalent of a Soviet collective farm.

Skippy, your assertions about greedy CEOs is populist nonsense. Where in Article I of the Constitution does it mention the Federal government's powers to regulate the pay of private citizens working for private enterprises? And once you have given that precedent to the government, what is to prevent that authority from being abused for political gain?

URR, US was not bankrolling any of European defences lately, unless you think Iraq or Afghanistan were on the verge of invading EU. Russia might be sometime soon a threat again, provided it doesnt implode demographically, but for now it was barely capable of semi-conquering Georgia (while US was doing nothing). As for the socialist model, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland beg to differ about its efficiency. Might have something to do with being top ranked in transparency ratings, though. "Greedy CEOs" are as populist nonsense as is "evil government out to take your money" - both notions are trying to create hate objects for voters.

Hmm, using "Guest's" comments as a standard I guess we need to roundly condemn George Washington. He was an officer in the militia, under British command, and later led the successful revolt against the King of England. Apparently if conscience or patriotism conflicts with loyalty to a despot or fool you're supposed to stay with the despot or fool.

No I did not say the government has the right to regulate excessive pay of CEO's. However-you, and I, have a vested interest in shaming corporations into behaving responsibly. And the government does have the right to demand quid pro quos when it gives companies loans like it did to (fill in the blank of financial firms paying huge bonuses and not lending to average americans.).

But lets go back to my answer to Mr. Mirvish. You said its socialist and strait out of Trotsky. How so? A CPF type fund is your money controlled by you-not the government. You decide how to invest it and you decide when to retire. The only thing regulated is the requirement to save into it-and to make it clear to corporations that they have to match it. Its worked in Singapore for years, and thanks to the ability to use the money as collateral it makes them have a rate of home ownership of over 90%. The government is requiring it because if it doesn't its impacting other citizens. A CPF was advocated by Bush and defeated at the time-but I am have become more and more convinced that doing it the way they do in Singapore or Japan is the way out of the Social Security crisis. What's "socialist" about people funding their retirements with their own money?

Furthermore-if I don't save for my retirement, or you don't save for yours we are both eventually impacting each other's freedom in the long term as well as overall quality of life. It is a civic responisbility to save because we are more interconnected now than in previous generations. What you do affects your fellow Americans.

Teabaggers say they are for reducing debt and expenditures. Fine, the only way to meaningfully attack the debt is to re-structure entitlements. And in the end since defense accounts for a huge portion of our spending, some of sort of realistic assesment of what we need to be doing and what we don't need to be doing is in order. Medicare needs to be resrtructured also-but I would attack Social Security first because I believe of the two-that's the easier case to make in our current political climate.

Which is where in general, their argument falls apart because their solutions don't do any of that. In fact, in several cases all they do is set the pre-conditions for another recession and economic instability. Its wht fundamentally I remain opposed to them because 90% of what they think they know is fundamentally wrong. And can be proven so-with just a little homework. They are not in favor of small government-they are in favor of Republican big government. And that is it.

URR - I did give you proof. The explanation of Art. 88 in the Manual for Courts-Martial says the truth is not a defense. Thus, the intended scope of the article is broader than your earlier post suggests (i.e., limited to libel or threats). A good example would probably be some of the statements made about President Clinton while he was CINC. The man was without question an adulterer and a liar...but an officer could not say so publicly without violating Article 88. I know of at least one officer (a Marine O-4) who was disciplined for doing exactly that, and I recall the Deputy Commandant warning all Marine officers to knock off the calls for Clinton's impeachment.

Old NFO - my comments aren't the standard. The law is the standard. I don't care whether you like the law or not, you took an oath to follow it. If you don't like the law, argue that it should be changed.

The US certainly did provide the preponderance of military force of NATO for nearly 60 years, and still does.

As for your assertions about US actions in the Georgia crisis, just what did the European members of NATO do? Merkel was on the first plane to St Petersburg.

I would not want the tax rates or economic futures of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, or Finland. They can beg to differ all they want to.

"Evil government out to take your money" invariably takes far, far more of it than greedy CEOs do. I would refer you to Thomas Paine's assertion that government in its most benign remains a necessary EVIL.

That is not what the law says. Retired personnel, and reservists when not on active duty and not in uniform, are not covered by any such nonsense. Making up crap that you almost certainly didn't believe, or demand be enforced, during the previous administration is rubbish. What next? Follow your fellow lefties lead and charge anyone who doesn't bow to "The One" with sedition? I don't remember surrendering my citizenship when I joined the Navy, as I recall I took an oath to the Constitution not the president. A constitution the left is doing it's best to dismantle. If I want to say anything I want about the jug eared oaf currently in the oval office it is my right to do so. It's amazing how quickly the left can change it's spots. Two years ago dissent was the highest form of patriotism, now it's practically a crime. When Bush called for the Patriot Act to keep an eye on terrorists he was decried as a budding Hitler, Obama extends and expands it and not a peep out of the "Civil Libertarian" crowd. The Tea Party is accused of violence and racism based on absolutely zero evidence but if rampaging undocumented Democrats throw rocks and beat people in Arizona your lips are zipped. The only constant on the left is your blatant opportunism and hypocrisy.

There is much appeal for a CPF-style retirement plan. But that is not what was proposed when there were recent rumblings about government "taking control" of 401k and IRA accounts. Statrting with Johnson's Great Society and the War on Poverty, each increase in entitlements has been aimed at the non-contributors. That is the reason both Medicare and SS need restructuring.

Medicare is being broken by high medical costs, paid in increasing numbers to people who did not contribute a dime. We talk on the one had about health care (read: health insurance) being a "basic human right", and on the other of how drug addicts and inebriates have "diseases" that are not their fault, and will be fully covered by statute, with proportionately much higher per capita expenses than the rest of us.

The mortgage crisis can be directly tied back to the "right" to own a home that was codified under the 1978 FHA. And the threats by the CBC to haul lenders in front of Congress to have them explain why they were racists for not making the wildly unrealistic "diversity" goals set for them by a special interest group. Much of the "subprime" policies were de facto illegal until forced on the lenders by the government. In addition, some highly questionable regulations in wake of Enron made matters infinitely worse. It was not a lack of government control, but too much of the wrong kind, for the wrong reason.

So we have an $800 billion government solution using taxpayer money to a problem created by government solutions.

You say you didn't hear any screaming about the GW Bush bailouts. Like hell you didn't. But here is the difference. In my opinion, Bush should not have done what he did. He didn't want to, but did. Obama, on the other hand, cannot wait for the next opportunity. He would like nothing better. Centralized government controlling as many aspects of our lives, our spending, our choices, our prosperity, and now, with the college loan situation, our educational opportunities.

Have you been to a tea party? You know what millions who have think of all these issues? You can summarize in a sentence? Wow. Sounds like you are talking about teachers. I don't know any who would like Republican big government, or any other big government. And they have reasonable concerns that with the entitlements and "immigration reform" plans, this current administration will succeed in creating a massive voting block made up of people entirely dependent on the government, who will vote for whomever promises them the most money. Power perpetuation at its worst.

I have read Art 88 many times. Am intimately familiar with the provisions and elements of the offense. I remember the ACMC warning, and the incident you refer to. But that does not give me proof that there is a broader intent. And ACMC's warning was not a legal order, if servicemembers expressed their opinions out of uniform. That was made very clear with several challenges made on behalf of service members at the time.

I can't believe that you'd say that you want cocaine in your tea. You do know there are other meanings for "sugar" right? Some communities even refer to Diabetes as "sugar." "Sugar" could also mean some lovin' from a woman, did you mean that? I mean, I guess I could interpret what you said to just mean sugar, but I could also interpret it as cocaine, sex, or diabetes. Hmm, odd that the same logic can't be applied to "tea bagger." Nah, you're too busy being outraged.

Actually, URR, that regulating pay stuff is part of Greece's problem. One of my children goes to a rather large university and because of her major and course selections, she is friends with a lot of students from Greece. They all have the same complaint... they want out of there BECAUSE of salary caps and the fact that no matter how hard they work, they'll never earn more than a certain amount. So they come here. But there are lots of angry ones left behind. Limited salaries means limited tax base, means bankrupt country. Add to that the expectation that one can retire at 53 and sit in the sun and drink ouzo or something... well, wouldn't we all like to do that. Take away people's incentive to work and see where that gets your economy!

Late Polish president was in Tbilisi, along with leaders of Baltic states while Bush was in Peking ogling the beach volleybal team. NATO is history to much of the Western Europe, as is the Cold War. Here in Poland things look better from the US point of view as we have Mr.Bear closer to us, but Russian power is on decline, after all what military power you can have with economy size of Holland? 5 Flankers a year is about the size of their air industry right now. And you wonder why Gates slashes F-22? Scandinavian economies have much healthier debt balance than US, which is dangeously close to Greek one (US debt:90%GNP, Greece 100%, approximately... by comparison, Poland made a constitutional barrier of 60% after which government cant borrow any further - and it was socialist government that proposed the amendment lol). And if you want classics cited, on the greedy CEOs: When 2 or 3 businessmen meet, it is probably to discuss agreement to the detriment of their customers. Adam Smith.

Absolutely. Pay controls have driven much of the top talent out of countries that have those burdensome regulations. Rampant unionism, a lifelong and fiscally unsustainable system of entitlements, intrusive and stifling government, is causing fissures in the EU that may bring it down. The currency crisis and debt crisis are SYMPTOMS of the disease. The disease is socialism.

My point regarding NATO is that the US carried the vast majority of the fiscal, hardware, and manpower burden during the Cold War. The US Army, centered around V Corps, VII Corps, and USAF units forward deployed had more combat power than the rest of the NATO nations in Europe combined. And that was just the FORWARD DEPLOYED elements, not counting anything coming from CONUS.

But would Adam Smith say it is the role of government to dictate what those customer interests are? Or would Smith advocate letting the market forces shape and cull those businesses who are non-competitive or unsustainable due to not meeting customer demand?

West Germany alone had 12 divisions compared to 7 US in Europe... A fast convoy needed to get first reinforcements from CONUS would take week or so to get into Europe, and Soviets counted they could finish their offensive by that time.What really counted for the US was its strategic nuclear arsenal, but as I already said to Western Europe it is a history now. Entire generation of people has grown up without having to face Soviet tanks across the Iron Curtain. What was once seen as US leadership of the free world is seen today as a protection racket against undefined and nebulous enemies. Worse still, US is seen as preying on the weak enemies like Iraq that has never recovered militarily after Gulf War I, but hesitant to engage true threats like nuke-armed N.Korea or nearly nuclear Iran. That is general perception out in Europe, and even if it is not mine (I say it makes perfect sense to attack enemy coalitions weakest points first - like Italy in WW II, and Iraq with relatively - by Arab standards - secular society was a good place to start introducing democracy into region) it is my duty to report it so you can better understand political reality on the other side of the pond.